Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

Welfare-society-partisan I guess? The best thing a government can do is not run into debt and avoid charging massive taxes to employees and companies working in their country. That way, business can thrive better and jobs get created in larger number, so it should be a good thing if you are poor and unemployed.

Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.

View on HN

Australia is "ridden" with welfare and we're doing just fine economically, thanks.

We also get to walk around our cities without constant fear of violent robbery by the extreme poor. Nice huh?

Yeah, lets not forget the huge advantage of natural resources in Australia. Just like Russia can survive on its gaz business alone.

ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal, I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.

Ok, then what would be your response to Canada?

Maple Syrup.

Growing public debt from one year to another. And quite fast, too.

"Canada’s federal debt grew steadily between 5% and 10% per year until 1975. For the next 12 years it grew on average over 20% per year. It surpassed $100 billion in 1981, $200 billion in 1985, $300 billion in 1988, $400 billion in 1992, and $500 billion in 1994. It peaked at $563 billion in 1997. The debt then declined to $458 billion by 2008. With the recession, the federal debt grew by $5.8 billion in 2008-09 and is expected to grow by $55.9 billion in 2009-10. November 2012 Canadian debt surpassed the $600 billion mark"

Canada certainly look like Maple Red in this map of worldwide public debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dette_publique2011.jpg

You better check your sources before commenting. Or maybe you are one of those to think that federal debt is not an issue and that you never need to pay it back. You are in for a big surprise.

You are asserting that extreme poverty and the absence of welfare or assistance does not lead to crime? I find your position dubious.

Yeah. Have you ever heard of peer to peer assistance? you know, that thing called charity that used to exist before governments started to take care of it themselves?

How about Mother Theresa? How about the Red Cross? About about the religious associations who live on donations only?

In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.

I would not bring up a notorious nutter like Mother Theresa in support of your Ayn Rand ideology if I were you.

And your argument that charities and government-funded welfare are mutually exclusive is just plain bizarre. In any case, let us know how Somalia works out for you.

> In your little world everything comes from the government, as well as your ideology it seems.

I suspect we may well share some sentiments, but you're coming off as needlessly argumentative. Yeah, sometimes I do too :p

[Mother Theresa] felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus. Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'."

The quality of care offered to terminally ill patients in the Homes for the Dying has been criticised in the medical press. The Lancet and the British Medical Journal reported the reuse of hypodermic needles, poor living conditions, including the use of cold baths for all patients, and an approach to illness and suffering that precluded the use of many elements of modern medical care, such as systematic diagnosis. Dr. Robin Fox, editor of The Lancet, described the medical care as "haphazard", as volunteers without medical knowledge had to make decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors. He observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa)

As a Canadian, I think I strongly prefer our government-provided healthcare to the Mother Theresa version.

> ANd thanks for the cliche that poor = robber/criminal

Parent was pointing out that a reasonable government welfare program does a lot less to foster resentment than a free market "fend for yourself" approach.

> I am sure many honest poor people appreciate your point of view.

Honest people still have to eat. Poor people don't (usually) choose to be poor, and if you force them into a corner with no other alternative, they will either

a) Die

b) Resort to crime or some other undesirable activity to prevent themselves from dying.

Nordic countries are ridden with wellfare and are doing quite OK, I'd say. The problems Greeks and others are having are not related to wellfare.

Also eastern/southern Europe countries are not exactly welfare countries.

Well welfare has a threshold effect. Nordic countries have very small populations to take care of. You'll see that countries where welfare becomes an issue are usually larger ones in the dozens of millions.

But I wouldn't put all the nordic countries in the same basket. Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.

Couldn't one simply split countries up into smaller countries, if being a small country makes things better?

Greece is a rather small country, so are Portugal and Ireland. If anything, being small makes things worse, as it is more likely that there is less economical diversification.

Greece never had an economy to begin with. It's got a free ride with the Euro cheap interest rates and now a brutal reality check when they had to pay back.

Is is not all relative? It's not like countries with "small populations to take care of" have massive populations to pay for that welfare.

I don't know the answer, but maybe you do: what percentage of the population is considered "on welfare" for those countries that are striving, versus those that aren't?

> Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland.

I don't know if that's the case, but if so, it just might be related to Sweden having shitloads of more Somalis than Finland.

Australia, at 23 million, has one of the most liberal welfare systems in the world [1]. The economy is doing just great.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#Australia (Everyone gets money for nothing, forever)

"Last I know Sweden is not doing too well compared to Finland."

'But from another perspective, Finland’s performance looks disappointing. An alternative destination from Helsinki on one of those monster cruise ships is due west to Stockholm. Unlike Finland, Sweden chose not to join the euro. Until the crisis, that made little difference. Both countries did well; if anything Finland’s performance was stronger. But over the past five years their fortunes have diverged to the detriment of Finland.'

http://www.economist.com/node/21560865

> Countries ridden with welfare are not doing TOO well currently. Most countries in Europe, US, Japan. All deep to their neck in public debt, always at the verge of bankruptcy. This can't be good for anyone in the end, poor included.

At least most of said countries have smaller debt-to-GDP ratio than US.

Software patents and copyright are a form of welfare for business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com